The officer’s report –
A recent example was the Alma Club where Council officers attempted to secure land for an additional local open space in Caulfield North but, owing to the impact on the design, suitable land could not be made available and a cash contribution was made instead.
The Public Question –
Item 9.8 of the agenda cites the Alma Club site as an example of a cash rather than land contribution. For this site, I ask:
1. What was the undeveloped land value placed on the site?
2. What was the full cash contribution that council received?
3. Was this amount paid in one lump sum?
4. Why was any contribution paid prior to subdivision and as stipulated by law?
The ‘Answer’ –
The report at item 9.8 was correct in saying that Council tried to secure agreement to an open space contribution of land at the former Alma Club. It was right to say that, following a period of negotiation, that was not feasible and the open space
contribution will be in cash.
The report was mistaken to say that the contribution had been paid. What has been paid is back rates of $67,430. That was paid on 30 May 2014. (Back rates are payable when a property ceases to be eligible to be rated under the Cultural and Recreational Lands Act and becomes rateable under the general rating system. )
The misunderstanding between the payment of the back rates as opposed to the open space contribution was made during the writing of that section of the item between the Planning Conference on the evening of 25 June and the Item being finalised on 26 June. Council apologises for the mistake. The open space cash contribution will be payable in cash at the time of subdivision and calculated according to the value of the land at that time. If Amendment C120 is in effect, it would be 5.7% and could not be appealed to VCAT. While Amendment C120 is not in effect, it would be 5% or less and could be appealed to VCAT.
A difference of 1% would equate to approximately $75,000 for this one subdivision.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 6, 2014 at 6:06 PM
Good that Council is finally breaking from a habit of a lifetime and admitting to error. Now that it has attributed the error to the rush to write the report it should explain why it was so rushed and as a result done carelessly. I note that the response fails to comply with Council’s Local Law, being not as brief as possible and containing gratuitous comments for political purposes.
The response also contains an egregious error, suggesting Council is unfamiliar with the legislation applying to open space contributions. Under S19(2) of Subdivisions Act 1988 “the land is to be valued on a day not more than 12 months before the date for compliance with the public open space requirement”, not as Council claims at the time the land is subdivided. A smart developer would use this to advantage and appeal to VCAT if necessary. Council I’m sure will not reveal who wrote the response.
It wasn’t that long ago that Council insisted there wasn’t an open space problem, claiming that people were well-served if there was open space [of unspecified size and quality] within 2.5km. It had to, having ballsed-up so comprehensively the management of funds collected from open space contributions since the establishment of the Urban Villages policy.
Even Jeff Akehurst’s responses given to councillor questions when Council considered Item 9.8 are dubious or just plain wrong. He should know that the processes covering Amendments are more complex and provide more options than the ones he outlined. After all, just because Council has received submissions doesn’t mean it has to go to a panel. The Minister can exempt Council from key provisions; Council can change the amendment in the manner requested, assuming a specific change has been requested; or under S23(1)(c) it could abandon the part of the amendment that is being requested to be changed. We don’t know what Council’s views are, because its focus is on bullying residents who have the temerity to make a submission as they are entitled to under PAEA Division 2.
July 6, 2014 at 7:22 PM
The Alma Club fiasco is really becoming a series of mega Council F-Ups. I’d suggest that Council must be running out things they can F-Up but I shudder to think of what might yet occur.
The F-Up register with the Alma Club is pretty impressive
1. Refusal to even discuss acquiring the site for $3m (which later sold for close to $8m), even though the site was in the area that the 2013 Open Space Strategy identified as having the least open space in the Municipality and the site comprised existing sporting facilities and function rooms.
2. Council’s failure to comply with the statutory notification requirements (ie. 60 days) enabled the Developer to head to VCAT and bypass Council altogether. For show only purposes Council did a command performance of rejecting the application, which Council’s officers recommended approving, while at the same time trying to justify their “failure to comply” with utter bullsh*t.
3. The Alma Club Development was approved by VCAT at the mediation stage, when the resident objectors gave up on Council representation (Council sent the officer who wrote the report recommending approval of the development) and wrangled more concessions out of the developer than Council was seeking.
4. And while the Alma Club was still on the table at VCAT, the implementation of the new planning zones occurred. Surprise, surprise – the Alma Club site, located in the middle of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (formerly Minimal Change) was re-zoned as a General Residential Zone (i.e. 3 storeys, no limit to no. of dwellings) – so much for “direct translation”. The explanation for the re-zoning being that it was done by the Minister and Council not only didn’t notice it (their admission) but didn’t appeal against it.
5. Now we have more ineptitude when backrates are reported as open space levy. Amazing how Council can
a) give the precise date (except for the year) of the misclassification while not explaining how they can make such a serious blunder.
b) take the opportunity to plug Amendment C120 by giving a $ comparison. Aside from the comparison being irrelevant to the question, Council has not mentioned that the potential delay in implementing the C120 amendment is due to material errors made by Council in preparing the amendment.
c) Council’s open space levy comparison mentions it’s payable at the value of the undeveloped land at the time of subdivision but omits to specifically mention if the % rate used in the calculation is that which is in the planning scheme at the time of subdivision or whether it is the rate which was applicable at the time the planning application was lodged. Since Council has stated that they expect a “spike” in planning applications (between now and the delayed implementation of C120) to take advantage of lower open space levy rates (%) it would appear to be the later. Should “potentially misleading” be added to irrelevant?
July 7, 2014 at 6:08 PM
The Alma Club was technically in the middle of R1Z, not NRZ, at the time of rezoning. The rezoning was of course not “neutral”, was never subject to a Council resolution, was mostly done in secret by officers and the mayor without Council authority, and involved some fairly outrageous claims from officers and Cr Hyams in order to persuade the Minister to exempt the Amendment from the usual notice requirement and public scrutiny. The Alma Club outcome is the natural consequence of their chicanery.
July 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM
The Alma club was sold in August 2012 and the dates for paying the money come nearly two years later. Even if settlement took a year nothing adds up on all this.
July 7, 2014 at 5:36 PM
Off topic but noticed trucks dumping sand in center of racecourse. Must be building another track. Must be truly shaking in their boots about the auditor general investigation then!